01 May 2012

The NYT Puts the Hit On

The Lindzen focus is a distraction, to my mind. Anyone thinking that the
erosion of Lindzen’s credibility will somehow build societal enthusiasm
for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is probably overly optimistic.

Spot on.

The New York Times has an article today ostensibly about clouds but which is really an extended hit piece on Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, member of the US National Academy of Sciences and well known climate skeptic.

Below I have excerpted a laundry list of phrases in the article used to describe Lindzen:

Leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day

Has drawn withering criticism

Errors in his papers

Proof is lacking

Obliged [politicians] by assuring them that they are running no risks by refusing to enact emissions limits

Contrarian scientist

Gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction

Wrong science

[Not] intellectually honest at all

Contrarian scientist

Methods he had used to analyze data were flawed

His theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts

Most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited

He routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers

Dr. Lindzen offers little hint of how thin the published science supporting his position is

Whatever one thinks about the climate change debate or Richard Lindzen, is it a good idea for the New York Times to engage in an over-the-top attack on a member of the National Academy of Sciences? Journalists, what do you think?